UMass hockey-Boston College game insights: Thumbs down on Toot's top line switch

UMass coach Toot Cahoon's breaking up of the first line backfired in a 4-2 loss at Boston College.
photo by J. Anthony Roberts

I understand the logic that if you have all your top snipers on the first line, then your other lines may have trouble scoring. and the opponents will counter by matching their best defensive players against that line.

So by dropping Michael Pereira down to the second line to play with Conor Sheary while moving Branden Gracel up to the first-line center, UMass coach Toot Cahoon was looking for more of a balanced attack in the 4-2 loss at Boston College. On paper, it makes sense.
,
But I think it was a mistake, but not just because it didn't work - and believe me it didn't work - but because of the message it sent.

Sure, it was a an opponent superior to Bentley, and stronger than Northeastern and Providence (although BC only edged Northeastern in overtime, and Providence got a tie in one of its games against Minnesota-Duluth this weekend), but the top line of T.J. Syner, Danny Hobbs, and Pereira had run up 17 points between them in the first three games. Syner was leading the nation in assists per game.

So I was waiting eagerly to see how they might do against BC, and what I'm not sure Toot took into account, perhaps they were looking forward to that too.

Now, I haven't talked to any of these players about it, nor will I. Syner and Hobbs are co-captain and good soldiers, and are certainly going to back the coach's decision as they should. Pereira, meanwhile, had a hat trick against Bentley.

But, by not keeping the unit together for BC, are they taking the message as we want a more balanced attack, or are they taking it as - he doesn't think we can do it against BC? Only they could tell you, but if they thought the latter, they're not going to say it, but could have internalized it.

And what's the switch telling the third and fourth lines? You guys can't score, so we have to break up our first line, so at least one other line can score?

Hey, I might be wrong, but I think there were some mental issues with the change that go beyond the X's and O's.

Well, the Minutemen actually did get a balanced attack from the first two lines. The top line had only six shots for the game, the second line with Eric Filou centering it, also had six shots. The goal scoring was balanced too at 0. Hobbs had only one shot. The first UMass goal was scored by a freshman, Andrew Tegeler, and he was playing his first collegiate game, and playing on the third line with Kevin Czepiel and Troy Power.

Now all of this is not a knock on Gracel, he even assisted on the last goal by Michael Marcou. But sometimes I think coaches need to take a look at things from higher up. It's funny, assistant coach Blaise MacDonald was watching the warm-ups from the press box, but when he was a head coach, he said he wouldn't do it because he'd get so angry. It's a different perspective.

And what I mean by all of this is - Syner, Hobbs, and Pereira had a certain flow to their play, one of them was always near the puck. It's something that's hard to explain, you just could see it a lot easier from upstairs than you can down low where the speed of the game looks 10 times as fast.

Now the negative of playing Syner, Hobbs, and Pereira all together is that they are all left-hand shots. But nobody I've ever seen skates on his backhand going down the opposite wing as well as Syner, and those centering passes he makes, just seem to be more effective with someone like Hobbs rushing into the left faceoff circle, or Pereira there to tip it his way. Just like that, it's in the net. With Gracel, a right-handed shot in the middle, it just didn't look as smooth.

Now much was made of the frustration Hobbs and Syner had with the officiating and the lack of success on the power play, and how too few players had to play too many minutes because of the penalties. Syner received a 10-minute misconduct, and the duo combined for 20 minutes in penalties.

But I wonder if deep inside some of that frustration, maybe even just a small part, was more likely to come out because the new combos didn't work.

After the game, Toot said that this doesn't mean he won't put the first line back together for another game, but that he wasn't sure that it was something that was sustainable for the whole season.

Maybe not, but I think the timing of the trigger-pulling was premature.

I mean, no one was going to be startled about losing at BC, but now as the Fear the Triangle blogger states: It's back to square one. . There's nothing to build on, except perhaps the encouraging performance from goaltender Jeff Teglia.

I think there's a danger in doing too much thinking in hockey - like Toot being hesitant to play Teglia in Providence, and finding out the hard way that Kevin Boyle couldn't come through in a third straight game. And he again may have tinkered too much in the BC game. You can't tinker and beat BC, you do your tinkering against Lowell,Northeastern, Providence, and Vermont. You put out your best players, and let them play.

Cahoon is trying to put out the lineup he thinks has the best chance to win the particular game that night. And I understand that, but at some point soon, you've got to have players who know what their roles are, and get better and better at it as the season goes along.

I like big lines. Look at UNH, you shuddered when its first line came out. Now they've graduated, and things have been tougher for the Wildcats. Big lines are great. For you older Springfield AHL fans: Bill Sweeney between Bill McCreary and Bruce Cline. If it's good enough for Eddie Shore, it's good enough for me. And then from the Springfield Kings days - Gordon Labossiere at center with Doug Robinson on the left, and Marc Dufour on the right

Do I think UMass would have won that game against BC if the first line had remained together? Probably not. But you still come away with that "What if" feeling.

The Minutemen restart their engines Friday against Boston University at the Mullins Center at 7 p.m.